dairy_peir_final_cert

Response to Comments Document
DAIRY MANURE DIGESTER AND CO-DIGESTER
FACILITIES
Final Program Environmental Impact Report
SCH No. 2010031085
Prepared for December 2010
California Regional Water Quality
Control Board, Central Valley Region

DAIRY MANURE DIGESTER AND CO-DIGESTER
FACILITIES
Final Program Environmental Impact Report
SCH No. 2010031085
Prepared for December 2010
California Regional Water Quality
Control Board, Central Valley Region
2600 Capitol Avenue
Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95816
916.564.4500
www.esassoc.com
Los Angeles
Oakland
Olympia
Petaluma
Portland
San Diego
San Francisco
Seattle
Tampa
Woodland Hills
209481

OUR COMMITMENT TO SUSTAINABILITY | ESA helps a variety of
public and private sector clients plan and prepare for climate change and
emerging regulations that limit GHG emissions. ESA is a registered
assessor with the California Climate Action Registry, a Climate Leader,
and founding reporter for the Climate Registry. ESA is also a corporate
member of the U.S. Green Building Council and the Business Council on
Climate Change (BC3). Internally, ESA has adopted a Sustainability Vision
and Policy Statement and a plan to reduce waste and energy within our
operations. This document was produced using recycled paper.

Dairy Digester and Co-Digester Facilities i ESA / 209481
Final Program EIR December 2010
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dairy Manure Digester and Co-Digester Facilities
Final Program EIR
Page
1. Executive Summary 1-1
1.1 Key Issues in the Response to Comments Documents 1-1
1.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting (MMR) 1-2
2. Introduction 2-1
2.1 Recommendations regarding the use of this Final Program EIR
Response to Comments document. 2-2
3. Written Comments and Responses 3-1
4. Responses to Oral Comments 4-1
4.1 Fresno Public Meeting 4-1
4.2 Rancho Cordova Public Meeting 4-3
Transcript from Fresno Public Meeting 4-6
Transcript from Rancho Cordova Public Meeting 4-25
5. Text Changes to the Draft Program EIR 5-1
Appendices
A. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
List of Tables
1-1 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures 1-3
2-1 List of Written Commenters on the Draft Program EIR 2-3
2-2 List of Oral Commenters on the Draft Program EIR (Fresno) 2-3
2-3 List of Oral Commenters on the Draft Program EIR (Rancho Cordova) 2-4
3-1 List of Written Commenters on the Draft Program EIR 3-1
4-1 List of Oral Commenters on the Draft Program EIR (Fresno) 4-1
4-2 List of Oral Commenters on the Draft Program EIR (Rancho Cordova) 4-3

Dairy Digester and Co-Digester Facilities 1-1 ESA / 209481
CHAPTER 1
Executive Summary
This chapter contains the final mitigation measures for the Program EIR, summarizes key issues raised
in the comments on the draft Program EIR, and discusses implementation of the Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Programs (MMRPs) under the waste discharge regulatory program. For additional
details regarding specific issues, please consult the appropriate chapters of the draft Program EIR,
as well as any modifications to those chapters as identified in the Text Changes to the draft Program
EIR (Chapter 5 of this document). All of the final mitigation measures, as modified in this Response
to Comments document, are presented in the revised Table 1-1, Environmental Impacts and Mitigation
Measures, presented at the end of this chapter. Please see Chapter 5 (Text Changes to the draft
Program EIR) to see the detailed deletions and insertions to any changes in the mitigation measures
in Table 1-1.
1.1 Key Issues in the Response to Comments Document
This Response to Comments document has modified the draft Program EIR as identified in the specific
insertions and deletions contained in Chapters 3 and 4 that are organized sequentially in Chapter 5.
The most substantial comments are in Comment Letters H (Dairy Cares), I (Sustainable Conservation)
and J (Western United Dairymen). These three comment letters have questions regarding the
mitigation measures that would be implemented for various types of dairy manure digester projects.
These comment letters resulted in modification to some of the mitigation measures in the EIR
and were helpful in preparing the mitigation monitoring and reporting plan contained in Appendix A
for the overall waste discharge regulatory program.
The three commenters also expressed concern about the need for several of the mitigation measures.
The need for more mitigation measures than might be required for a site specific EIR stems from the
fact that this EIR is for a broad-based program meant to cover a variety of potential dairy digester
configurations that could be proposed in the Central Valley (Region 5) and thus there is a lack of site
specific information. The commenters are reminded of this in response to Comment I-12, which
states that, “the primary goal of the Program EIR is to provide certainty to the CEQA environmental
review process for dairy digester projects by identifying potentially significant environmental level
impacts absent knowledge of site specific conditions, and identify feasible mitigation measures to
address the potential impacts.”

Dairy Digester and Co-Digester Facilities
1.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Programs
Mitigation monitoring is the follow-up effort by the Lead Agency to ensure that mitigation measures
are implemented. The Final Program EIR identifies mitigation measures that reduce most potentially
significant effects of the program to a less than significant level. A Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program (MMRP) is required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15097, and will be incorporated
into each waste discharge requirement (WDR) order or other action taken pursuant to the waste
discharge regulatory program. The mitigation monitoring reporting plan (Appendix A of this document)
provides a framework for the MMRPs to be considered during the adoption of each WDR order (e.g.,
General Order, and Individual WDRs) under the waste discharge regulatory program.

1. Executive Summary
LS – Less than Significant LSM – Less than Significant with Mitigation NI – No Impact S – Significant SU – Significant and Unavoidable
TABLE 1-1
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact Mitigation Measure
Impact Significance
Before Mitigation After Mitigation
5. Hydrology and Water Quality
Impact 5.1: Construction associated with installation of dairy
digesters and co-digester facilities could generate loose,
erodible soils that may impair water quality.
None required. LS LS
Impact 5.2: Digester and co-digester development could
adversely affect surface waters.
Measure 5.2: WDRs for digester and co-digester facilities shall include design and operational
requirements to manage all wastes and discharges to protect surface waters. Requirements shall
include the following:
 Prohibitions against any surface water discharges (unless exempt from NPDES permitting
requirements or covered by separate NPDES permit),
 Prohibitions against any discharges that would cause exceedance of surface water quality
objectives,
 Setbacks from surface water bodies
 Drainage requirements for co-digestion substrates/waste storage/receiving/handling areas to
drain to on-site wastewater retention ponds,
 Lining requirements for retention ponds in new facilities and operational dairies,
 Monitoring requirements that include sampling data of soils, retention water, and waste
streams to reconcile annually with Nutrient Management Plan (NMP),
 Requirements for tailwater return systems or other effective methods to minimize offsite
discharges;
 Prohibitions against any unreasonable effects on beneficial uses of nearby surface waters.
S LSM
Impact 5.3: Digester and co-digester development could
adversely affect groundwater quality.
Measure 5.3: WDRs for the discharge to land from dairy digester and co-digester facilities shall include
the following BPTC requirements or equivalent:
 Prepare and implement site-specific Salt Minimization Plan (SMP) as approved by the Central
Valley Water Board. The SMP shall consider the elimination, decommissioning, or the
reduction in use of regenerative water softeners on process water distribution networks or,
alternatively, evaluate and install alternate technology that reduces or eliminates on-site brine
disposal;
 Prepare and implement a site-specific NMP that incorporates analytical data for soils,
wastewater, manure, digester solids, groundwater and/or surface water supply. The required
analytical data is to be generated by a site-specific monitoring and reporting program. In the
case of groundwater, data from an approved representative groundwater monitoring program
may be substituted for some or all site-specific groundwater monitoring, if appropriate. The
NMP will be reconciled annually based on results of the monitoring and reporting program
and site-specific measurements of agronomic rates;
 Require all drainage be directed to a retention wastewater pond that has been designed to
meet antidegradation provisions of Resolution 68-16 by an appropriately licensed
professional;
S LSM

TABLE 1-1
Impact Significance
 To the extent practicable, use crops that maximize salt uptake;
 Apply liquid digestate consistently with crop water uptake rates;
 Prohibit hazardous substances in co-digestion substrates processed by each facility as verified
by laboratory analytical testing;
 Apply digestate at an approved rate commensurate with agronomic rate;
 Properly time application of digestate in accordance with crop requirements;
 Avoid excess irrigation;
 Maintain cover crops and vegetative buffer zones;
 Develop co-substrate acceptance criteria;
 Perform vector control and reduction;
 Monitor groundwater for pathogen indicator organisms;
 Require that solid wastes be stored on surfaces designed in accordance with a site-specific
Waste Management Plan prepared for the facility by an appropriate California registered
professional in accordance with WDR requirements;
 Maintain a neutral or alkaline pH for dairy digestate waste water applied to cropland unless
conditions warrant otherwise as detailed in the NMP;
 Prohibit hazardous waste, mammalian tissues (with the exception of mammalian tissue as
contained in compostable material from the food service industry, grocery stores, or
residential food scrap collection), dead animals, and human waste from all discharges; and
 Incorporate lined digester and co-digestion substrate storage facilities that meet the
antidegradation provisions of Resolution 68-16, as relevant, into project design in order to
prevent groundwater contamination with salts, nutrients, and other constituents.
Each facility shall prepare a site-specific Waste Management Plan in accordance with the WDR requirements
for review and approval to the Central Valley Water Board prior to commencement of operations.
Annual monitoring reports shall be reviewed by the Central Valley Water Board and any revisions
deemed necessary to the handling, storage, or land application of wastes shall be incorporated into
facility operations.
Impact 5.4: Development of dairy digester and co-digester
facilities could be exposed to flooding hazards.
Measure 5.4: WDRs for digester and co-digester facilities shall include design requirements for
individual or centralized anaerobic digester or co-digester facilities and associated facilities to protect
them from FEMA 100-year flood events. Design measures may include, but are not limited to: facility
sitting, access placement, grading foundation soils above projected water elevation, and site protection.
S LSM
facilities could require additional water supplies resulting in
depletion of groundwater.
facilities could contribute to cumulative impacts to water
quality.
Measure 5.6: Implement Mitigation Measures 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4. S SU

TABLE 1-1
Impact Significance
6. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact 6.1: Construction of dairy digester and co-digester
facilities within Region 5 would generate short-term
emissions of criteria air pollutants: ROG, NOx, CO, SO2,
PM10, and PM2.5 that could contribute to existing
nonattainment conditions and further degrade air quality.
Measure 6.1a: Applicants shall prepare and submit an Air Quality Technical Report as part of the
environmental assessments for the development of future dairy digester or co-digester facilities on a
specific project-by-project basis. The technical report shall include an analysis of potential air quality
impacts (including a screening level analysis to determine if construction and operation related criteria air
pollutant emissions would exceed applicable air district thresholds, as well as any health risk associated
with TACs from all dairy digester or co-digester facility sources) and reduction measures as necessary
associated with digester developments through the environmental review process. Preparation of the
technical report should be coordinated with the appropriate air district and shall identify compliance with
all applicable New Source Review and Best Available Control Technology (BACT) requirements. The
technical report shall identify all project emissions from permitted (stationary) and non-permitted (mobile and area)
sources and mitigation measures (as appropriate) designed to reduce significant emissions to below the
applicable air district thresholds of significance, and if these thresholds cannot be met with mitigation, then the
individual digester project could require additional CEQA review or additional mitigation measures.
Measure 6.1b: Applicants shall require construction contractors and system operators to implement the
following Best Management Practices (BMPs) as applicable during construction and operations:
 Facilities shall be required to comply with the rules and regulations from the applicable AQMD
or APCD. For example, development of dairy digester and co-digester facilities in the
SJVAPCD jurisdiction shall comply with the applicable requirements of Regulation VIII
(Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions) and Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Review).
 Use equipment meeting, at a minimum, Tier II emission standards, as set forth in §2423 of
Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, and Part 89 of Title 40 Code of Federal
Regulations.
 Minimize idling time either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the time of
idling to 5 minutes (as required by the state airborne toxics control measure [Title 13, §2485
of the California Code of Regulations]). Provide clear signage that posts this requirement for
workers at the entrances to the site.
 Comply with state regulations to minimize truck idling.
 Maintain all equipment in proper working condition according to manufacturer’s specifications.
 Use electric equipment when possible.
 Payment into an AQMD or APCD operated Voluntary Emission Reduction Agreement
(VERA).
 Incorporate fuel cells where feasible as an alternative to internal combustion engines, which
generate NOx emissions, to generate energy from the biogas produced at dairy digester and
co-digester facilities.
 Where feasible as an alternative to internal combustion engines, which generate NOx
emissions, use biogas from dairy manure digester and co-digester projects as a transportation
fuel (compressed biomethane) or inject biomethane into the utility gas pipeline system.
S LSM

TABLE 1-1
Impact Significance
Impact 6.2: Pre-processing, digestion, and post-processing
operational activities of dairy digester and co-digester
facilities in Region 5 would result in emissions of criteria air
pollutants at levels that could substantially contribute to a
potential violation of applicable air quality standards or to
nonattainment conditions.
Measure 6.2: Implement Mitigation Measures 6.1a and 6.1b. S LSM
Impact 6.3: Operation of dairy digester and co-digester
facilities in Region 5 could create objectionable odors
affecting a substantial number of people.
Measure 6.3a: Applicants for the development of digester facilities shall comply with appropriate local
land use plans, policies, and regulations, including applicable setbacks and buffer areas from sensitive
land uses for potentially odoriferous processes.
Measure 6.3b: AD facilities that handle compostable material and are classified as a compost facility
must develop an Odor Impact Minimization Plan (OIMP) pursuant to 14 CCR 17863.4. Otherwise,
applicants shall implement a site-specific Odor Management Plan (OMP) as part of each application
submitted to establish digester and co-digester facilities under the waste discharge regulatory program.
The OMP will specifically address odor control associated with digester operations and will include:
 A list of potential odor sources.
 Identification and description of the most likely sources of odor.
 Identification of potential, intensity, and frequency of odor from likely sources.
 A list of odor control technologies and management practices that could be implemented to
minimize odor releases. These management practices shall include the establishment of the
following criteria as appropriate:
- Establish time limit for on-site retention of undigested odiferous co-substrates (i.e.,
organic co-substrates must be put into the digester within 48 hours of receipt).
- Provide negative pressure buildings for indoor unloading of odiferous co-digestion
substrates. Treat collected foul air in a biofilter or air scrubbing system.
- Establish contingency plans for operating downtime (e.g., equipment malfunction, power
outage).
- Manage delivery schedule to facilitate prompt handling of odorous co-substrates.
- Modification options for land application practices if land application of digestate results
in unacceptable odor levels.
- Protocol for monitoring and recording odor events.
- Protocol for reporting and responding to odor events.
S LSM
Impact 6.4: Construction and operation of dairy digester and
co-digester facilities in Region 5 could lead to increases in
chronic exposure of sensitive receptors in the vicinity to
certain toxic air contaminants from stationary and mobile
sources.
Measure 6.4a: Implement Mitigation Measures 6.1a and 6.1b.
Measure 6.4b: Based on the Air Quality Technical Report (specified in Measure 6.1a), if the health risk
is determined to be significant on a project-by-project basis with DPM as a major contributor, then the
applicants shall either use new diesel engines that are designed to minimize DPM emissions (usually
through the use of catalyzed particulate filters in the exhaust) or retrofit older engines with catalyzed
particulate filters, which will reduce DPM emissions by 85%.
Measure 6.4c: H2S contained in the biogas shall be controlled before emission to air can occur.
S LSM

TABLE 1-1
Impact Significance
co-digester facilities in Region 5 would reduce GHG
emissions.
None required. NI NI
facilities in Region 5, together with anticipated cumulative
development in the area, would contribute to regional criteria
pollutants.
Measure 6.6: Implement Mitigation Measures 6.1a and 6.1b. S SU
7. Land Use and Agricultural Resources
Impact 7.1: The project would not physically divide an
established community.
Impact 7.2: The project would not result in dairy digester
and co-digester facilities that could conflict with an
applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency
with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to
the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or
zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect.
Impact 7.3: Implementation of the project would not conflict
with an applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan.
Impact 7.4: Implementation of the project could result in the
permanent conversion of land designated by the Department
of Conservation FMMP as Prime Farmland, Farmland of
Statewide Importance or Unique Farmland.
Measure 7.4: Whenever feasible, project related facilities off-site of a dairy should not be sited on
Important Farmland as defined by the California Department of Conservation’s Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program.
LS LS
Impact 7.5: The project would not result in conflicts with
existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act
contract.
Impact 7.6: Implementation of the project would not result in
the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses.
facilities would not result in cumulative land use impacts or
cumulative impacts to agricultural resources.
8. Transportation and Traffic
facilities would intermittently and temporarily increase traffic
levels and traffic delays due to vehicle trips generated by
construction workers and construction vehicles on area
roadways.
Measure 8.1: The contractor(s) will obtain any necessary road encroachment permits prior to
installation of pipelines within the existing roadway right-of-way. As part of the road encroachment permit
process, the contractor(s) will submit a traffic safety / traffic management plan (for work in the public right-of-
way) to the agencies having jurisdiction over the affected roads. Elements of the plan will likely include, but
are not necessarily limited to, the following:
S LSM

TABLE 1-1
Impact Significance
 Develop circulation and detour plans to minimize impacts to local street circulation. Use haul
routes minimizing truck traffic on local roadways to the extent possible. Use flaggers and/or
signage to guide vehicles through and/or around the construction zone.
 To the extent feasible, and as needed to avoid adverse impacts on traffic flow, schedule truck
trips outside of peak morning and evening commute hours.
 Limit lane closures during peak traffic hours to the extent possible. Restore roads and streets
to normal operation by covering trenches with steel plates outside of allowed working hours
or when work is not in progress.
 Limit, where possible, the pipeline construction work zone to a width that, at a minimum,
maintains alternate one-way traffic flow past the construction zone.
 Install traffic control devices as specified in Caltrans’ Manual of Traffic Controls for
Construction and Maintenance Work Zones where needed to maintain safe driving conditions.
Use flaggers and/or signage to safely direct traffic through construction work zones.
 Coordinate with facility owners or administrators of sensitive land uses such as police and fire
stations, hospitals, and schools. Provide advance notification to the facility owner or operator of
the timing, location, and duration of construction activities.
 To the maximum extent feasible, maintain access to private driveways located within
construction zones.
 Coordinate with the local public transit providers so that bus routes or bus stops in work zones
can be temporarily relocated as the service provider deems necessary.
Impact 8.2: Operations of dairy digester and co-digester
facilities would increase traffic volumes on roadways serving
the facility sites.
co-digester facilities could potentially cause traffic safety
hazards for vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians on public
roadways, and could increase traffic hazards due to possible
road wear or to accident spills of manure, or co-digestion
feedstocks or digestate.
Measure 8.3a: Implement Measure 8.1, which stipulates actions required of the contractor(s) to reduce
potential traffic safety impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Measure 8.3b: Prior to construction, the contractor(s), in cooperation with the agencies having
jurisdiction over the affected roadways, will survey and describe the pre-construction roadway
conditions on rural roadways and residential streets. Within 30 days after construction is completed,
the affected agencies will survey these same roadways and residential streets in order to identify any
damage that has occurred. Roads damaged by construction will be repaired to a structural condition
equal to the condition that existed prior to construction activity.
S LSM
facilities could intermittently and temporarily impede access
to local streets or adjacent uses (including access for
emergency vehicles), as well as disruption to
bicycle/pedestrian access and circulation.
Measure 8.4: Implement Measure 8.1, which stipulates actions required of the contractor(s) to reduce
potential access impacts to a less-than-significant level.
S LSM

TABLE 1-1
Impact Significance
co-digester facilities could contribute to cumulative impacts
to traffic and transportation (traffic congestion, traffic safety,
and emergency vehicle access).
Measure 8.5a: Prior to construction, for installation of pipelines in existing roadways, the project
sponsor will coordinate with the appropriate local government departments, Caltrans, and utility districts
and agencies regarding the timing of construction projects that would occur near project sites. Specific
measures to mitigate potential significant impacts will be determined as part of the interagency
coordination, and could include measures such as employing flaggers during key construction
periods, designating alternate haul routes, and providing more outreach and community noticing.
Measure 8.5b: Implement Mitigation Measures 8.1 and 8.3b.
S LSM
9. Biological Resources
Impact 9.1: The project could impact special-status plant or
wildlife species or their habitats.
Measure 9.1a: The project applicant or agency(s) responsible shall document that a site assessment
report for dairy digester and co-digester facilities to be constructed (including the location of digestate
application) has been submitted to CDFG for its review. This report shall be prepared by a qualified
biologist. It shall evaluate the project site’s potential to support special-status plant and wildlife species
(including critical habitat) and whether special-status species could be affected by dairy digester and
co-digester development, including construction and operations. If there are no special-status species
or critical habitat present, no additional mitigation would be required.
Measure 9.1b: If the site assessment determines that special-status species could be affected by
facilities development, the project would not be eligible as part of the project (for the Central Valley
Water Board discharge permit) unless the applicant submits a plan, prepared by a qualified biologist, to
mitigate or avoid any significant impacts on special-status species. This plan must be forwarded to the
appropriate regional office of the CDFG, the Endangered Species Unit of the USFWS in Sacramento,
and/or NMFS for review and approval of the mitigation strategy, when appropriate. If the site
assessment determines that a State or federally listed species would be affected by facilities
development, the project applicant shall consult with CDFG, the Endangered Species Unit of the
USFWS in Sacramento, and/or NMFS, as appropriate.
S LSM
Impact 9.2: The project could result in impacts on
biologically unique or sensitive natural communities.
Measure 9.2a: The project applicant or agency(s) responsible shall submit a site assessment report
prepared by a qualified biologist that determines if the project is likely to affect biologically unique or
sensitive natural communities. This information could be included in the report prepared under
Mitigation Measure 9.1a. If there are no biologically unique or sensitive natural communities present, no
further mitigation is required.
Measure 9.2b: If biologically unique or sensitive natural communities are present and would be
disturbed, the project would not be authorized under the project unless the applicant or agency(s)
responsible submits a plan to avoid or mitigate for any significant impacts on biologically unique or
sensitive natural communities and agrees to implement the mitigation. This report must be forwarded to
the appropriate regional office of the CDFG and/or the Endangered Species Unit of the USFWS in
Sacramento (as appropriate) for review and approval of the mitigation strategy. As described above,
this portion of the report could be incorporated into the report prepared under Mitigation Measure 9.1a.
S LSM
Impact 9.3: The project could result in impacts on waters of
the State and/or the U.S., including wetlands.
Measure 9.3a: The project applicant or agency(s) responsible shall submit a site assessment report
prepared by a qualified biologist that evaluates if the project is likely to affect waters of the State and/or U.S.,
including wetlands. This information could be included in the report prepared under Mitigation Measure
9.1a. If there are no waters present, no further mitigation would be required.
S LSM

TABLE 1-1
Impact Significance
Measure 9.3b: If waters of the State and/or U.S. are present in the project area, the project applicant or
agency(s) responsible shall either re-design the project to avoid affecting the waters, or obtain the appropriate
permits to allow for the impact. For waters that cannot be avoided, the permit process shall start with the
preparation of a jurisdictional wetland delineation, prepared by a qualified biologist that will be submitted to
the Corps for verification. Following verification, if jurisdictional waters occur within the project site, the
project applicant or agency(s) responsible shall obtain and comply with federal and State permit
requirements. This could include obtaining a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit, Section 401 Water
Quality Certification or Waiver, a Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement, and any other
applicable permits.
Impact 9.4: The project would not result in impacts on
migratory corridors or native wildlife nursery sites.
None required LS LS
Impact 9.5: Dairy digester and co-digester facilities would
not conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance.
facilities could contribute to cumulative impacts to biological
resources.
Measure 9.6: Implement Measures 9.1a, 9.1b, 9.2a, 9.2b, 9.3a, and 9.3b. S LSM
10. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
facilities could result in the potential exposure of construction
workers, the public and the environment to preexisting soil
and/or groundwater contamination.
Measure 10.1: Prior to final project design and any earth disturbing activities, the applicant or agency(s)
responsible shall conduct a standard “Phase I Type” electronic record search. If no incidents are
identified within a quarter mile of the construction area, standard construction practices can be
implemented. If the record search identifies soil or water quality contamination open cases within a
quarter mile of the construction area, a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) shall be
prepared by a Registered Environmental Assessor (REA) or other qualified professional to assess the
potential for contaminated soil or groundwater conditions at the project site; specifically in the area
proposed for construction of dairy digester or co-digester facilities. The Phase I ESA shall include a
review of appropriate federal and State hazardous materials databases, as well as relevant local
hazardous material site databases for hazardous waste on-site and off-site locations within a one
quarter mile radius of the project site. This Phase I ESA shall also include a review of existing or past
land uses and areal photographs, summary of results of reconnaissance site visit(s), and review of other
relevant existing information that could identify the potential existence of contaminated soil or
groundwater.
If no contaminated soil or groundwater is identified or if the Phase I ESA does not recommend any
further investigation then the project applicant or agency(s) responsible shall proceed with final project
design and construction.
OR
If existing soil or groundwater contamination is identified and if the Phase 1 ESA recommends further
review, the applicant or agency(s) responsible shall retain a REA to conduct follow-up sampling to
characterize the contamination and to identify any required remediation that shall be conducted
S LSM

TABLE 1-1
Impact Significance
consistent with applicable regulations prior to any earth disturbing activities. The environmental
professional shall prepare a report that includes, but is not limited to, activities performed for the
assessment, summary of anticipated contaminants and contaminant concentrations at the
proposed construction site, and recommendations for appropriate handling of any contaminated
materials during construction.
Impact 10.2: Transportation, use, disposal or accidental spill
of hazardous materials during construction of dairy digester
and co-digester facilities would not result in the potential
exposure of construction workers, the public and the
environment to hazardous materials.
Impact 10.3: Transportation, use, disposal or accidental spill
of hazardous materials during the operation and
maintenance of dairy digester and co-digester facilities
would not result in the potential exposure of the public or the
environment to hazardous materials.
Impact 10.4 Operation of dairy digester and co-digester
facilities would not result in the release of biogas which
could increase the risk of fire hazards.
Impact 10.5 Dairy digester and co-digester facilities could
be located within a one quarter mile of a school resulting in
potential hazards associated with accidental release of
hazardous materials, including biogas.
Measure 10.5: Dairy digester and co-digester facilities shall be sited at least one quarter mile from
existing or proposed schools, daycare facilities, hospitals and other sensitive land uses.
LS LS
Impact 10.6: Installation of biogas pipelines in public rights-of-
way could impair implementation of or physically interfere with
an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan.
Measure 10.6: Implement Mitigation Measure 8.1. S LSM
facilities could contribute to cumulative impacts related to
hazardous materials.
Measure 10.7: Implement Mitigation Measures 10.1 and 10.5. LS LS
11. Aesthetic Resources
Impact 11.1: Implementation of the project, including
operation of dairy digester and co-digestion facilities, could
result in impacts to scenic highways and/or scenic vistas.
Measure 11.1a: Centralized biogas processing facilities shall be sited in locations that do not conflict
with local polices for preservation of vistas or scenic views.
Measure 11.1b: When feasible considering the scale of the facilities and the site specific topography,
site specific landscape design, including berms and/or tree rows, shall be constructed in order to
minimize potentially sensitive views of both digester facilities at dairies or off dairies at centralized
facilities.
Measure 11.1c: Centralized biogas processing facilities shall be designed similarly in massing and
scale to other nearby agricultural buildings in agricultural areas, in order to retain the character of the
surrounding visual landscape.
S LSM

TABLE 1-1
Impact Significance
Impact 11.2: Construction of the project could result in
impacts to scenic highways and/or scenic vistas.
Measure 11.2: The project shall incorporate into all construction contracts for the proposed project and
ensure implementation of the following measures:
 Main construction staging areas and the storage of large equipment shall be situated on individual
sites in such a manner to minimize visibility to nearby receptors. As feasible, staging areas and
storage shall occur away from heavily traveled designated scenic roadways, in areas where it
will be least visible from the surrounding roads.
 Construction staging areas shall be onsite and remain clear of all trash, weeds and debris,
etc. Construction staging areas shall be located in areas that limit visibility from scenic
roadways and sensitive receptors to the extent feasible.
S LSM
Impact 11.3: Implementation of the project could result in
substantial creation of or change in light or glare.
Measure 11.3: Whenever possible, flares shall be situated on individual sites in such a manner to
minimize visibility to nearby receptors. Site specific design shall discourage placement of flares at
higher elevations, or within the line of site of nearby residential buildings or scenic highways. In the
event that site design does not provide adequate coverage, an enclosed flare design shall be used or
landscaping, such as berms or tree rows, shall be constructed to minimize light impacts.
S LSM
facilities could contribute to cumulative impacts to
aesthetics.
Measure 11.4: Implement Mitigation Measures 11.1a, 11.1b, 11.1c, 11.2, and 11.3. S LSM
12. Cultural Resources
facilities could result in the adverse change in the
significance of a historical or archaeological resource,
pursuant to §15064.5.
Measure 12.1a: In order to determine whether a project may cause a significant impact to cultural
resources, and therefore, have an adverse effect on the environment, the Central Valley Water Board
shall require each application submitted for a discharge permit for a digester or co-digester facility to
identify the project’s potential impacts to cultural resources.
Prior to ground-disturbing activities, the project applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist to (1)
conduct a record search at the appropriate information center of the California Historical Resources
Information System (CHRIS) to determine whether the project area has been previously surveyed
and whether cultural resources were identified; and (2) request a sacred lands search from the
NAHC. The results of the record search and sacred lands search shall be included in the Cultural
Resources Inventory Report provided to the Central Valley Water Board.
In the event the CHRIS records search indicates that no previous survey has been conducted, the
qualified archaeologist shall recommend whether a survey is warranted to satisfy the requirements of
CEQA based on the sensitivity of the project area for cultural resources. If, for example, the existing
dairy or agricultural land proposed for establishment of a digester or co-digester facility was
constructed entirely on fill, as shown by original and final contour drawings, a surface survey for
archaeological resources would not be warranted. Similarly, a surface survey may not be warranted if
the project area has been extensively disturbed by dairy or agricultural use.
For projects that constitute federal undertakings, as described in the Federal Agencies section of the
Introduction (Chapter 2), the cultural resources study shall be prepared in accordance with Section
106 of the NHPA. The cultural resources study and inclusive mitigation measures shall form the basis
for the cultural resources component of the project-level environmental documentation prepared for
S LSM

TABLE 1-1
Impact Significance
the project under Section 106.
If the survey, CHRIS record search, or NAHC search indicate cultural resources are located within a
project area, the Cultural Resources Inventory Report shall include an assessment of the significance
of the resources according to applicable federal, state, and local significance criteria. If the cultural
resources are determined significant historical resources, the Lead Agency (usually the Central
Valley Water Board) must review and approve the applicant’s proposed treatment measures to
ameliorate any “substantial adverse change” in the significance of each historical resource, in
consultation with a qualified archaeologist or architectural historian, and other concerned parties.
Treatment measures may include preservation through avoidance or project redesign, incorporation
within open space or conservation easements, data recovery excavation of archaeological resources,
formal documentation of built environment resources, public interpretation of the resource, or other
appropriate treatment, and may be described in a project-level Cultural Resources Mitigation Plan
included in the Cultural Resources Inventory Report to be approved by the Lead Agency.
Should the project area contain standing, built environment resources now 50 years of age, a
qualified architectural historian shall be retained to evaluate the integrity and significance of the
resource(s) unless the building(s) or structure(s) were covered in the existing survey report and
determined not significant according to applicable federal, state, and local criteria. The results of that
evaluation shall be included in the Cultural Resources Inventory Report.
If cultural resources identified within a project area are neither a historical resource nor unique
archaeological resource, there would be no significant effect to the environment and no further
treatment of those known resources would be required.
Measure 12.1b: Inadvertent discovery measures for cultural resources shall be implemented during
all construction activities within the project area. Measures shall include procedures for discovery and
protection of cultural resources, including human remains, during construction or earth-disturbing
activities.
Within project areas of identified archaeological sensitivity, discovery measures would include: (1) a
worker education course for all construction personnel; (2) monitoring of all earth-disturbing activities
by a qualified archeologist; and (3) procedures for discovery of cultural resources, including human
remains, during construction or ground-disturbing activities if an archaeological monitor is not
present. Monitoring by a Native American with knowledge in cultural resources may also be required,
as appropriate. Monitoring within recent fill deposits or non-native soil would not be required.
All construction or ground-disturbing activities shall be halted within 100 feet of a cultural resources
discovery, including human remains, whether or not a monitor is present, until a qualified
professional archaeologist can evaluate the find. If the find is determined to be a significant historical
resource and cannot be avoided, then impacts on that resource will require mitigation. During
evaluation or mitigative treatment, ground disturbance and construction work could continue on other
parts of the project area.
If known or suspected human remains are discovered, in addition to halting all construction or
ground-disturbing activities within 100 feet, the following steps must be taken before construction
activities may be resumed within the stop-work area:

TABLE 1-1
Impact Significance
 The County Coroner has been immediately notified and has determined that no investigation
of the cause of death is required; and
 If the remains are of Native American origin, the following steps have been taken:
o The applicant has 24 hours to notify the NAHC, who should, in turn, notify the person
identified as the proper descendant of any human remains. Under existing law, the
descendant then has 24 hours to make recommendations regarding the disposition of
the remains following notification from the NAHC of the discovery.
o If the NAHC is unable to identify a descendant or if the descendant does not make
recommendations within 24 hours, the applicant shall, with appropriate dignity, reinter
the remains in an area of the property secure from further disturbance.
o Should the applicant not accept the descendant’s recommendations, the applicant or
the descendant may, under existing law, request mediation by the NAHC.
facilities could result in the disruption of human remains,
including those interred outside formal cemeteries.
Measure 12.2: Implement inadvertent discovery measures for the protection of cultural resources,
including human remains (Measure 12.1b).
S LSM
facilities could result in direct or indirect disturbance or
destruction of a unique paleontological resource or site or
unique geologic feature.
Measure 12.3: If paleontological resources, such as fossilized bone, teeth, shell, tracks, trails, casts,
molds, or impressions are discovered during ground-disturbing activities, all ground disturbing activities
within 50 feet of the find shall be halted until a qualified paleontologist can assess the significance of the
find and, if necessary, develop appropriate salvage measures in consultation with the lead agency and
in conformance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology Guidelines (SVP, 1995; SVP, 1996). Additional
guidance may be found in Standard Guidelines for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts
to Nonrenewable Paleontologic Resources (SVP 2010).
S LSM
facilities could contribute to cumulative impacts related to
archaeological, historical, and/or paleontological resources.
Measure 12.4: Implement Measures 12.1a, 12.1b, 12.2, and 12.3. S LSM
13. Geology
Impact 13.1: The project could expose people to injury and
structures to damage resulting from seismic activity.
Measure 13.1: Prior to construction, project applicants or agency(s) responsible shall ensure that dairy
digester facilities are designed and construction techniques are used that comply with relevant local, State
and federal regulations and building code requirements. Requirements could include, but might not be
limited to:
 Preparation of site-specific soil and geotechnical engineering studies performed by a licensed
professional including, but not limited to, a geologist, engineering geologist, certified soil
scientist, certified agronomist, registered agricultural engineer, registered civil or structural
engineer, and/or certified professional erosion and sediment control specialist with expertise in
geotechnical engineering issues who is registered and/or certified in the State of California, to
determine site specific impacts and to recommend site specific mitigations. The site specific
soil and geotechnical engineering studies shall be submitted to the all appropriate State and
local regulatory agencies including, but not limited to, the CVRWQCB and the city or county
engineering department for review and approval. The project applicant or agency(s)
S LSM

TABLE 1-1
Impact Significance
responsible shall implement all feasible recommendations addressing potential seismic
hazards and soil constraints; and
 Implementation of CBC design requirements
Impact 13.2: The project could expose people to injury and
structures to damage resulting from unstable soil conditions.
Measure 13.2: Implement Mitigation Measure 13.1. S LSM
Impact 13.3: Construction of project facilities would not
result in an increase in the erosion of soils which could result
in a loss of top soil.
None required LS LS
facilities would not contribute to cumulative impacts related
to geology, soils and seismicity.
None required LS LS
14. Noise
facilities could temporarily increase noise levels at nearby
sensitive receptor locations or result in noise levels in
excess of standards in local general plans, noise ordinance,
or other applicable standards.
Measure 14.1a: Construction activities shall be limited to daytime hours, between 7 a.m. and 6 p.m.,
Monday through Saturday, or an alternative schedule established by the local jurisdiction.
Measure 14.1b: Construction equipment noise shall be minimized by muffling and shielding intakes and
exhaust on construction equipment to a level no less effective than the manufacture’s specifications,
and by shrouding or shielding impact tools.
Measure 14.1c: Construction contractors within 750 feet of sensitive receptors shall locate fixed
construction equipment, such as compressors and generators, and construction staging areas as far as
possible from nearby sensitive receptors.
Measure 14.1d: Construction contractors shall comply with all local noise ordinances and regulations.
S LSM
Impact 14.2: Noise from operation of dairy digester and co-
digester facilities or centralized facilities could substantially
increase ambient noise levels at nearby land uses or result
in noise levels in excess of standards in local general plans,
local noise ordinances, or other applicable standards.
Measure 14.2: Any continuous equipment operating at night within 1,000 feet of a sensitive receptor must
be enclosed. Furthermore, an acoustic study and follow-up measurements must be performed (after
construction) to prove that the noise from any continuous equipment operating at night would comply
with all local noise regulations. If no local regulations are available, noise levels must be below 45 dBA
at the nearest sensitive receptor. If the sound level exceeds local regulations, or 45 dBA if applicable,
additional sound-proofing shall be installed to meet the required sound level.
S LSM
Impact 14.3: Project operational activities associated with
transportation would not increase ambient noise levels at
nearby land uses.
facilities could result in a cumulative increase in noise levels.
Measure 14.4a: Implement Mitigation Measures 14.1a through Measure 14.1d and Measure 14.2,
above.
S LSM
15. Public Services
Impact 15.1: The project would not substantially increase
demands on fire protection services.
Impact 15.2: The project would not conflict with wastewater
treatment requirements of the Central Valley Water Board.

TABLE 1-1
Impact Significance
Impact 15.3: The project could result in significant
environmental effects from the construction and operation of
new water and wastewater treatment facilities or expansion
of existing facilities.
Measure 15.3a: If the project proposes to obtain water from a water supplier (irrigation district,
municipal system or other public water entity), the developer would enter into an agreement for service
with the supplier.
Measure 15.3b: If the project proposes to obtain wastewater service from a wastewater treatment
provider (municipal or other public entity), the developer would enter into an agreement for service with
the provider.
S LSM
Impact 15.4: The project would not result in significant
environmental effects from the construction of new
stormwater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities.
Impact 15.5: The project would not require significant levels
of new or expanded water supply resources or entitlements.
Impact 15.6: The project could result in exceeding the
capacity of a wastewater treatment provider.
Measure 15.6: If the project proposes to obtain wastewater service from a wastewater treatment
provider (municipal or other public entity), implement Mitigation Measure 15.3b.
S LSM
Impact 15.7: The project could result in the construction
new energy supplies and could require additional energy
infrastructure.
Measure 15.7: Implement Mitigation Measures for construction of energy infrastructure including
Mitigation Measures 6.1b, 9.1a, 9.1b, 9.2a, 9.2b, 9.3b, 12.1b, 12.2, 12.3, and 14.1a-c.
S LSM
Impact 15.8: The project would not conflict with existing
energy policies or standards.
None required. NI NI
facilities would not contribute to cumulative impacts to public
services and utilities.

CHAPTER 2
Introduction
The Program Environmental Impact Report (Program EIR) for the Waste Discharge Regulatory
Program for Dairy Manure Digester and Dairy Manure Co-Digester Facilities within Central
Valley Region (Region 5) (SCH #2010031085) was prepared by ESA, pursuant to the requirements
of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), to inform the Central Valley Regional Water
Quality Control Board (Central Valley Water Board) of the potential environmental impacts related
to the proposed waste discharge regulatory program for dairy digester and co-digester (i.e., that
use manure plus other organic feedstocks) facilities in Region 5. The Program EIR provides a
programmatic analysis of the environmental impacts of the development of dairy manure digester
and co-digester facilities and is intended to provide (CEQA) compliance for the Central Valley
Water Board’s waste discharge regulatory program for these facilities.
Throughout this Response to Comments document, the development of the waste discharge regulatory
program for the adoption of Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) General Orders and Individual
WDRs to regulate the discharge to land of liquid and solid digestate generated from dairy manure
digesters and diary manure co-digesters will be referred to as the “project”. The Central Valley Water
Board is the lead agency for the environmental review of the project and has the principal responsibility
for project approval. Written and oral comments received during the 45-day public review and
comment period (8 July 2010 until 23 August 2010) for draft Program EIR are addressed in this
Final Program EIR Response to Comments document. The Response to Comments document
and the draft Program EIR together comprise the Final Program EIR for the project.
The Central Valley Water Board circulated a draft Program EIR regarding this project for public
review and comment in accordance with CEQA Guidelines. The draft Program EIR is intended
to inform the Central Valley Water Board and the public of the possible environmental impacts of
the project, to determine whether these impacts could be significant, to identify methods whereby
significant impacts could be reduced to less-than-significant levels, and to discuss possible
alternatives. CEQA Guidelines specify that the Final EIR shall consist of the following:
 The draft EIR or a revision of that draft.
 Comments and recommendations received on the draft EIR either verbatim or in
summary.
 A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the draft EIR.
 The response of the lead agency to significant environmental points raised in the review
and consultation process.
 Any other information added by the Lead Agency.

This Final Program EIR Response to Comments document responds to all significant environmental
points raised during the public review period for the draft Program EIR. It also lists the text changes
to the draft Program EIR as a result of the CEQA review process. This Final Program EIR Response
to Comments document, together with the draft Program EIR, constitutes the Final Program EIR.
To that end, the draft Program EIR is hereby incorporated by reference into this report. The draft
Program EIR is available for review at the following Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control
Board locations:
Fresno Office
1685 E Street, Suite 100
Fresno, CA 93706
Sacramento Office
11020 Sun Center Drive, Suite 200
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
Redding Office
415 Knollcrest Drive, Suite 100
Redding, CA 96002
The draft Program EIR can also be found online at:
http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralvalley/press_room/announcements/index.shtml
2.1 Recommendations regarding the use of this Final
Program EIR Response to Comments document
The inputs received on the draft Program EIR are written comments on the draft Program EIR and
oral comments from speakers at the two public meetings held during the 45-day public comment
and review period. Chapter 3 contains copies of the comment emails and letters on the draft Program
EIR received by the deadline for responses (or shortly thereafter) and responses to the significant
environmental points made by the commenters. Each comment email or letter is immediately
followed by the responses to the email or comment letter. Each comment has been labeled with
an identification number for reference to its response. The list of written commenters and
identification numbers are depicted in Table 2-1.
The oral comments are responded to in Chapter 4. For ease of reading the list of commenters for
both public meetings and the responses to the oral comments are at the beginning of Chapter 4.
The comment responses are followed by the transcripts (with the comments identified) by the
Fresno transcript and finally the Rancho Cordova transcript. The Fresno public meeting was held
on Tuesday August 3, 2010 in the evening (6:30 to 8:00 p.m.), the list of each oral commenter
and comment identification numbers are depicted in Table 2-2.

2. Introduction
TABLE 2-1
LIST OF WRITTEN COMMENTERS ON DRAFT PROGRAM EIR
Letter ID Agency Commenter
A State of California, Governor’s Office
of Planning and Research, State
Clearinghouse and Planning Unit
Scott Morgan, Director
B United Stated Environmental
Protection Agency, Communities and
Ecosystems Division
Katherine Taylor, Associate Director
C U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Regulatory Division, Sacramento
District
Zac Fancher
D Department of Resources Recycling
and Recovery (CalRecycle)
Mark de Bie, Division Chief
E California Department of Fish and
Game
Lisa Gymer, Environmental Scientist
F Stanislaus County Environmental
Review Committee
Christine Almen ,Senior Management
Consultant
G County of Tulare, Resource
Management Agency
Cynthia Echavarria, Environmental
Coordinator
H Dairy Cares J.P. Cativiela, Dairy Cares Program
Coordinator
I Sustainable Conservation Allen J. Dusault, Program Director
J Western United Dairymen Michael L. H. Marsh, CPA, Chief
Executive Officer
K United Auburn Indian Community of
the Auburn Rancheria
Greg Baker, Tribal Administrator
TABLE 2-2
LIST OF ORAL COMMENTERS ON THE DRAFT PROGRAM EIR (FRESNO)
Comment Number Commenter
1-1 Craig Hartman, Four Creeks
2-1 Nettie Drake
2-2 Nettie Drake
3-1 Marvin Mears
3-2 Marvin Mears
3-3 Marvin Mears
3-4 Marvin Mears
The Rancho Cordova public meeting was held on Wednesday August 4, 2010 in the evening
(6:30 to 8:00 p.m.), the list of each oral commenter and identification numbers are depicted in
Table 2-3.

TABLE 2-3
LIST OF ORAL COMMENTERS ON THE DRAFT PROGRAM EIR (RANCHO CORDOVA)
Comment Number Commenter
4-1 Dan Weller, California Air Resources Board
5-1 Justin Ellerby, California Center for Cooperative Development
6-1 Bill Van Dam, Alliance of Western Milk Producers
6-2 Bill Van Dam, Alliance of Western Milk Producers
Some comments and responses in this document resulted in text that should be changed in the
draft Program EIR. Text with a line through it (strikethrough) is removed from the draft Program
EIR; underlined text is added to the draft Program EIR. Chapter 5 contains all the changes in this
Response to Comments document that result in changes to the draft Program EIR. The changes
are organized sequentially according to the page in the draft Program EIR on which the change
was made.

CHAPTER 3
Written Comments and Responses
TABLE 3-1
LIST OF WRITTEN COMMENTERS ON DRAFT PROGRAM EIR
Letter ID Agency Commenter Page
A State of California, Governor’s Office of
Planning and Research, State
Clearinghouse and Planning Unit
Scott Morgan, Director 3.A-1
B United Stated Environmental Protection
Agency, Communities and Ecosystems
Division
Katherine Taylor, Associate Director 3.B-2
C U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Regulatory Division, Sacramento District
Zac Fancher 3.C-1
D Department of Resources Recycling and
Recovery (CalRecycle)
Mark de Bie, Division Chief 3.D-1
E California Department of Fish and Game Lisa Gymer, Environmental Scientist 3.E-1
F Stanislaus County Environmental
Review Committee
Christine Almen ,Senior Management
Consultant
3.F-1
G County of Tulare, Resource
Management Agency
Cynthia Echavarria, Environmental
Coordinator
3.G-1
H Dairy Cares J.P. Cativiela, Dairy Cares Program
Coordinator
3.H-1
I Sustainable Conservation Allen J. Dusault, Program Director 3.I-1
J Western United Dairymen Michael L. H. Marsh, CPA, Chief
Executive Officer
3.J-1
K United Auburn Indian Community of the
Auburn Rancheria
Greg Baker, Tribal Administrator 3.K-1

This Page Left Intentionally Blank

Dairy Digester and Co-Digester Facilities 3.A-2 ESA / 209481
Response A1
Comment noted that the Central Valley Water Board (Region 5) has complied with the State
Clearinghouse review requirements for the draft Program EIR pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act.

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IX
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105-3901
COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
DIVISION
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region
Attn: Stephen Klein, P.E., M.S., project manager
1685 E Street
Fresno, CA 93706-2007
Via e-mail: sklein@waterboards.ca.gov
Subject: Comment Letter -- Dairy digester and co-digester draft Program EIR
Dear Mr. Klein,
We at U.S. EPA Region 9 appreciate the Central Valley Water Board’s proactive preparation of
this Program EIR to help support future development of dairy manure digester and co-digester
projects in Region 5. We share your interests in supporting these projects that can provide
benefits to the State by generating renewable energy and by reducing greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions. EPA is pleased to provide comments on the draft program EIR. Our comments
address the environmental context of the PEIR, the proposed “environmentally superior
alternative,” and the biogas production scenarios analyzed.
In general, we note that a large subsection of the Central Valley Water Board’s jurisdiction is the
San Joaquin Valley, where dairies and dairy cows are highly concentrated. In the San Joaquin
Valley, topography, climate, and emissions sources combine to make air quality the least
healthful in the nation, and the contamination of groundwater with nitrates is widespread. As a
result of these geographic and environmental conditions, generation of renewable energy from
digesters must meet all applicable water and air regulatory requirements and, specifically, emit
as little nitrous oxide (NOx) as feasible. We suggest that the PEIR acknowledge these conditions
as constraints on the program in the introduction to the document. (To this end, we note that
U.S. EPA is investing $400,000 in San Joaquin Valley's Clean Air Technology Initiative, some
of which will advance low-NOx alternatives for electricity generation from digester biogas.)
In addition, we are concerned about the cumulative effects on both air and groundwater quality
that the PEIR indicates will occur under “the project” as specified. In this context, we question
the designation of the project as the environmentally superior alternative, as opposed to a project
that contains both the co-digestion substrate restriction and the reduced NOx emissions
alternatives. The PEIR (p. 17-13) justifies this designation by defining the purpose of the project
as to “promote the increase of renewable energy sources” and thereby obtain greenhouse gas
emission reduction benefits, and by stating that the more stringent alternatives would impede this
purpose. However, this seems to ignore the larger context and the need to consider the larger
3.B-1
B
B-1
B-2

goal of balancing and reducing, to the extent feasible, all environmental impacts. We suggest
revising the description of the purpose of the PEIR to address this issue and then re-evaluating
the designation of the environmentally superior alternative.
Our specific comments address the scenarios analyzed in the PEIR. The PEIR analysis addresses
individual on-farm anaerobic digesters, centralized digester facilities that process manure trucked
or piped in from several nearby dairies, and centralized biogas upgrade facilities that process
biogas piped in from distributed digesters. We suggest that the analysis also include a scenario
in which a centralized facility generates electricity using biogas piped in from distributed
digesters. The size of the resulting facility could make use of cleaner electricity generation
technology financially feasible in locations not convenient to gas transmission infrastructure.
In passing, we noted an apparent logical inconsistency and minor typographical errors. On page
5-18, the descriptions of the relationship between pH, NH3, and NH4- in the first and second
paragraphs seem contradictory. On page 6-5, “system-troposphere system” should be “surface-
troposphere system” and, on page 6-6, “nitric acid production” appears twice in the list of
anthropogenic sources of NO2.
Again, we appreciate the Central Valley Water Board’s work and the opportunity to comment on
this important study.
Sincerely,
Katherine Taylor, Associate Director
Communities and Ecosystems Division
Agriculture Advisor to the Regional Administrator
3.B-2
B-2
cont
B-3
B-4

3. Written Comments and Responses
Dairy Digester and Co-Digester Facilities 3.B-3 ESA / 209481
Response B-1
The Central Valley Water Board appreciates the $400,000 investment in the San Joaquin Valley’s
Clean Air Technology Initiative, some of which will advance low-NOx alternatives for electricity
generation from digester biogas.
We acknowledge that the program is constrained by the potential for NOx emission and that the
San Joaquin Valley has the least healthful air quality in the nation. Please see Section 1.4 (third
bullet top of page 1-7 in the draft Program EIR), where the San Joaquin Valley is described as
“one of the most polluted air basins in the country”.
Also on page 1-7 is a summary of “The Reduced NOx Emissions Alternative, which specifically
addresses the concern for minimal NOx emissions.
Table 6-3 on page 6-9 of the draft Program EIR shows that many of the Air Basins in Region 5
are nonattainment with regard to state and federal air quality standards for ozone and particulate
matter (PM10 and PM2.5).
Tables 5-1, 5-2 and 5-3 (draft program EIR pages 5-21, 5-22, and 5-23 respectively) show that
nitrates are a common contaminant in groundwater wells in the Sacramento River Hydrologic
Region (HR), San Joaquin River HR, and Tulare Lake HR. As noted in the second full paragraph
of the draft Program EIR, the dairy digesters would also result in the conversion of more of the
nitrogen into its mineralized form, which is more readily available to plants than organic nitrogen
compounds, which release nitrogen slowly and not always at times and rates useful to plants.
Reducing the time organic nitrogen remains in the surface soil reduces the potential that slowly
mineralized nitrogen will be available to leach to groundwater.
Response B-2
Comment noted. The draft Program EIR did consider the larger context in making the determinations
on the Environmentally Superior Alternatives given cumulative effects on both air and groundwater
quality. Especially the context that the alternatives would actually have to be implemented to provide
environmental benefits and if they are not implemented the opportunities for environmental
improvements, especially in the areas of developing renewable energy resources and the reduction
of greenhouse gas emissions, would not be realized. Extensive thought was given to balancing all
the environmental impacts and these thoughts are summarized on page 1-8 (end of the last paragraph)
and page 17-14 (end of the last paragraph) of the draft Program EIR as follows:
“Regardless of their potential benefits, both the Additional Co-digestion Substrate Restrictions
Alternative, and the Reduced NOx Emissions Alternative place restrictions on the
development of dairy manure digester and co-digester projects that could further restrict
future growth of digesters in Region 5. Dairy digester development would be restricted by
the high costs and/or additional regulatory hurdles of the technologies associated with the
Reduced NOx Emissions Alternative (i.e., fuel cells, transportation fuel, and utility pipeline

injection). Dairy digester development would also be restricted by additional limitations
contained in the Additional Co-digestion Substrate Restrictions Alternative. By likely
restricting the development of dairy digesters in Region 5, both the Additional Co-digestion
Substrate Restrictions Alternative, and the Reduced NOx Emissions Alternative would have a
negative influence on two of the primary objectives of the project, which are the development
of a renewable energy resource (biogas) and the reduction of GHG emissions from dairy
operations. Accordingly, some environmental benefits would as a practical matter be lost
under these alternatives. Given the existing technological and economic constraints, therefore,
these alternatives cannot be said to be clearly environmentally superior to the proposed
project.”
Response B-3
The Program EIR analysis is intended to include electrical generation as an option at centralized
facility. We agree with the EPA. The description of the centralized facilities in the draft Program
EIR should more clearly indicate that the centralized facilities would have the same flexibility as
individual dairies with regard to the use of biogas. As shown in the draft Program EIR on Figure
1-2 (page 1-4) and Figure 3-3 (page 3-8), biogas production can be used for a variety of purposes
(i.e, transportation fuel, utility pipeline injection, engine/turbine, boiler and fuel cells). The air
quality analyses and mitigation measures would be the same whether electricity is generated from
biogas at an individual dairy or at a centralized facility (see Impact 6.2 beginning on page 6-24 of
the draft Program EIR). Also, as noted by the EPA, the size of the centralized facility could make
electrical generation feasible in locations where injection into the utility pipeline system is not
possible.
To clarify the lack of any restriction on centralized facilities to generate electricity, the text
describing these scenarios on pages 1-5 and 3-11 shall be revised as follows:
“Centralized Locations
There are two categories of centralized location facilities for dairies that will be assessed
in this Program EIR: (1) Central AD Facility, whereby individual dairies would collect manure
and transport the manure by pipeline or truck to a central facility; and (2) a Central Biogas
Clean-Up Facility, whereby raw biogas from individual dairies (including dairies linked via
underground gas pipelines) is piped to a central facility. These types of centralized facilities
may be sited on or off-site of dairies. For both location options, the central facility would
have the potential to receive manure, manure plus co-digestion substrate, and/or raw biogas.
Biogas at centralized facilities could be used to generate electricity using internal combustion
engines/turbines or fuel cells or used for boilers, transportation fuel, or for utility pipeline
injection.”

3. Written Comments and Responses
Response B-4
The second sentence in the second paragraph on page 5-18 of the Program EIR is revised to read:
“Toxicity increases decreases as pH decreases and as temperature decreases.”
The fourth sentence of the first paragraph of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions discussion on page 6-
5 of the draft Program EIR has been revised as shown below:
“The term “natural greenhouse effect” refers to how greenhouse gases trap heat with the
system surface-troposphere system; the term “enhanced greenhouse effect” refers to an
increased concentration of greenhouse gases, which results in an increase in temperature of
the surface-troposphere system.”
The third sentence on page 6-7 of the draft Program EIR has been revised as shown below.
“Anthropogenic sources of nitrous oxide include fertilizer application, production of
nitrogen fixing crops, nitric acid production, animal manure management, sewage treatment,
combustion of fossil fuels, and nitric acid production (CAT, 2006; CAPCOA, 2009).”

1
Paul Miller
From: Stephen Klein [sklein@waterboards.ca.gov]
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 9:34 AM
To: Paul Miller
Cc: Clay Rodgers; Doug Patteson; David Sholes
Subject: Fwd: USACE Comments on Waste Discharge Regulatory Program SCH #2010031085
Paul,
This is the first comment I have received on the draft PEIR.
Stephen
>>> "Fancher, Zachary J SPK" <Zachary.J.Fancher@usace.army.mil>
>>> 7/21/2010 2:36 PM >>>
Dear Mr. Klein,
We are responding to your July 8, 2010 request for comments on the Draft Program EIR for a
Waste Discharge Regulatory Program for Dairy Manure Digester and Co-Digester Facilities
within the Central Valley Region. We understand that study locations are undetermined as
of yet, but correspondence with the Corps should be maintained as they are confirmed.
The Corps of Engineers' jurisdiction within the study areas may be under the authority of
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for the discharge of dredged or fill material into
waters of the United States. Waters of the United States include, but are not limited to,
rivers, perennial or intermittent streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, vernal pools, marshes,
wet meadows, and seeps. Project features that result in the discharge of dredged or fill
material into waters of the United States will require Department of the Army
authorization prior to starting work.
To ascertain the extent of waters on the project site(s), the applicant should prepare a
wetland delineation, in accordance with the "Minimum Standards for Acceptance of
Preliminary Wetland Delineations", under "Jurisdiction" on our website at the address
below, and submit it to this office for verification. A list of consultants that prepare
wetland delineations and permit application documents is available on our website at the
same location.
The range of alternatives considered for the project(s) should include alternatives that
avoid impacts to wetlands or other waters of the United States. Every effort should be
made to avoid project features which require the discharge of dredged or fill material
into waters of the United States.
In the event it can be clearly demonstrated there are no practicable alternatives to
filling waters of the United States, mitigation plans should be developed to compensate
for the unavoidable losses resulting from project implementation.
If you have any questions, please contact Zachary Fancher at 1325 J Street, Room 1480,
Sacramento, California 95814-2922, email Zachary.J.Fancher@usace.army.mil, or telephone
916-557-6643. For more information regarding our program, please visit our website at
www.spk.usace.army.mil/regulatory.html.
Zac Fancher
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Division, Sacramento District
1325 J Street, Room 1480
Sacramento, California 95814-2922
Phone: 916.557.6643 Fax: 916.557.6877
Zachary.J.Fancher@usace.army.mil
Let us know how we're doing.
http://per2.nwp.usace.army.mil/survey.html
Information on the Regulatory Program.
3.C-1
C
C-1
C-2
C-3

Dairy Digester and Co-Digester Facilities 3.C-2 ESA / 209481
Response C-1
Comment noted. Because the dairy digesters are likely to be constructed on lands that have been
previously altered by agricultural activities, they are unlikely to impact any waters of the U.S.
However, Mitigation Measure 9.3a requires a wetland assessment, prepared by a qualified biologist
that will determine if waters of the U.S. and/or waters of the State are present in the project area.
If potential wetlands are present, and cannot be avoided, under Mitigation Measure 9.3b, the project
applicant or agency(s) responsible will be required to prepare a wetland delineation for review by
the Corps.
Response C-2
Comment noted. As stated in Mitigation Measure 9.3b, if waters of the U.S. are present in the project
area, the project would either be re-designed to avoid impacts or the project applicant or agency(s)
responsible would obtain the appropriate permits. If waters of the U.S. are present, and cannot be
avoided, the project applicant will comply with state and federal law, including the Clean Water
Act, which could require the preparation of an alternatives analysis.
Response C-3
Comment noted. Mitigation Measure 9.3b requires that if waters of the U.S. are present, and cannot
be avoided, then the project applicant or agency(s) responsible shall obtain all appropriate permits.
Mitigation plans are required as part of the Clean Water Act, Section 404 permit.

California Integrated Waste
Management Board
September 2009
How Anaerobic Digestion Fits Current Board
Regulatory Structure
California Environmental Protection Agency
3.D-3

S T A T E O F C A L I F O R N I A
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Governor
Linda S. Adams
Secretary, California Environmental Protection Agency
•
INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT BOARD
Margo Reid Brown
Board Chair
Sheila Kuehl
Board Member
John Laird
Board Member
Carole Migden
Board Member
Rosalie Mulé
Board Member Position Vacant
•
Mark Leary
Executive Director
For additional copies of this publication, contact:
Integrated Waste Management Board
Public Affairs Office, Publications Clearinghouse (MS–6)
1001 I Street
P.O. Box 4025
Sacramento, CA 95812-4025
www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Publications/
1-800-CA-WASTE (California only) or (916) 341-6306
Publication # IWMB-2009-021
Copies of this document originally provided by CIWMB were printed on recycled paper
containing 100 percent postconsumer fiber.
Copyright © 2009 by the California Integrated Waste Management Board. All rights reserved. This
publication, or parts thereof, may not be reproduced in any form without permission.
This report was prepared by staff of the Integrated Waste Management Board to provide information or
technical assistance. The statements and conclusions of this report are those of the Board staff and not
necessarily those of the Board members or the State of California. The State makes no warranty,
expressed or implied, and assumes no liability for the information contained in the succeeding text. Any
mention of commercial products or processes shall not be construed as an endorsement of such products
or processes.
The California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) does not discriminate on the basis of
disability in access to its programs. CIWMB publications are available in accessible formats upon request
by calling the Public Affairs Office at (916) 341-6300. Persons with hearing impairments can reach the
CIWMB through the California Relay Service, 1-800-735-2929.
3.D-4

Staff Report to the Board i
Table of Contents
Principal Author:....................................................................................................................................ii
Executive Summary.....................................................................................................................................iii
Guidance Document On How Anaerobic Digestion Fits Current Board Regulatory Structure....................1
Purpose of this Document ......................................................................................................................1
Brief Description of Anaerobic Digestion..............................................................................................1
Anaerobic Digestion Handling Compostable Material Is Regulated As a Compostable Material
Handling Facility....................................................................................................................................2
A Tiered Regulatory Structure ...............................................................................................................4
How do I Determine if the Feedstock is Compostable? .........................................................................5
Anaerobic Digestion Handling Feedstock That Is Not Compostable Material ......................................5
When is an Anaerobic Digestion Activity That is Handling Compostable Material and Creating
Active Compost Excluded From Any Requirements Under the Solid Waste Regulations? ..................5
Small Quantity of Green Material .........................................................................................................6
Location at Existing Solid Waste Facilities...........................................................................................6
When is Anaerobic Digestion Required to Comply with the Enforcement Agency Notification? ........7
Agricultural Material Composting Operation........................................................................................7
Green Material.......................................................................................................................................7
Publicly Operated Treatment Works (POTWs).....................................................................................8
Research Operations..............................................................................................................................8
Large Volume of Green Material ...........................................................................................................9
All Other Material as a Feedstock........................................................................................................10
Design and Operational Requirements.................................................................................................10
Compost Sampling Requirements ........................................................................................................10
Attachment 1 Decision Diagram for Anaerobic Digestion...................................................................12
Attachment 2 Tier Regulatory Placement for Anaerobic Digestion By Feedstock..............................13
Attachment 3 Excluded Activities........................................................................................................14
Attachment 4 Anaerobic Digestion and Transfer/Processing Facility Requirements ..........................16
3.D-5

Staff Report to the Board ii
Principal Author:
Watson Gin
Senior Waste Management Engineer, Waste Compliance and Mitigation Program
California Integrated Waste Management Board
Coordination and Review:
Mark De Bie
Division Chief, Permit and LEA Support Division
Michael Bledsoe
Staff Counsel, Office of Legal Affairs
3.D-6

Staff Report to the Board iii
Executive Summary
The Board adopted Strategic Directives, specifically SD-2, SD-3 and SD-9, to establish goals to
increase the diversion of waste from landfills, encourage use the technology to effectively
manage and reuse waste consistent with the waste management hierarchy and The Global
Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32), and to encourage the development of alternative fuels.
AB 32 calls for the reduction of greenhouse gases through reductions from sources and the use of
low carbon fuels. Solid waste landfills are a significant source of greenhouse gases due to
decomposition of organic material in landfills into methane. Anaerobic digestion is being
considered for many projects to meet the goals in the Board Strategic Directives and AB 32.
The use of anaerobic digestion to digest organic waste will contribute to meeting the goals
identified in the Strategic Objectives and AB 32 by eliminating the land disposal of organic
waste, generating a methane rich gas that can be used as fuel for generating electricity, heat, or
vehicles. The methane rich gas is a low carbon fuel that is environmentally superior to petroleum
based fuel such as gasoline or diesel. Lastly, this fuel source is sustainable, reducing the
dependence on the importation of crude oil.
California, as well as the rest of the United States, is behind in using anaerobic digestion to
manage solid waste. Many European countries are using anaerobic digestion to reduce their
dependence on land disposal while creating a source of low carbon fuel. Possible reasons for this
may be that available land for landfills in Europe is scarcer, and fuel and energy costs are much
higher in Europe.
The guidance focuses on the applicability for a solid waste facilities permit, compostable
materials handling facility permit, enforcement agency notification and exclusions. It is not a
comprehensive discussion of all Board requirements that may apply. Likewise, it does not
include a discussion of any approvals that may be required by other state agencies or local
jurisdictions, such as the Regional Water Quality Control Board and local air pollution control
agency. The determination of what level of authorization or permit is required for an activity
involving anaerobic digestion is made by the Local Enforcement Agency.
3.D-7

Staff Report to the Board 1
Guidance Document On How Anaerobic Digestion
Fits Current Board Regulatory Structure
Purpose of this Document
The use of anaerobic digestion to treat solid waste to produce compost and biogas will continue
to increase in California as municipalities and industry take on the challenge to reduce the
disposal of organic waste into landfills and reduce our reliance on non-renewable energy.
Anaerobic digestion is one technology that is part of a system that includes the digester,
feedstock handling process, equipment for the control and collection of off-gases from the
digester, and management of digestate (liquid and/or solids) from the digester. This guidance
document is intended to provide a basic outline of how the statutory and regulatory requirements
of the California Integrated Waste Management Board apply to the permitting/authorization of
anaerobic digestion projects. The application of the Board requirements must be applied on a
case-by-case basis. This document provides an overview of how the Title 14 requirements for
permit/authorization apply to anaerobic digestion with consideration of the feedstock, source of
the feedstock, location and quantity involved. The determination what level of authorization or
permit for an activity involving anaerobic digestion is made by the LEA.
The guidance focuses on the applicability for a solid waste facilities permit, compostable
materials handling facility permit, enforcement agency notification and exclusions. It is not a
comprehensive discussion of all Board requirements that may apply. Likewise, it does not
include a discussion of any approvals that may be required by other state agencies or local
jurisdictions, such as the Regional Water Quality Control Board and local air pollution control
districts.
The following discussion provides guidance on how anaerobic digestion is regulated under the
current regulatory structure, as charted in Attachment 1, Decision Diagram for Anaerobic
Digestion, Attachment 2, Tier Regulatory Placement for Anaerobic Digestion by Feedstock, and
in Attachment 3, Excluded Activities for Anaerobic Digestion Handling Compostable Materials.
Brief Description of Anaerobic Digestion
Anaerobic digestion is a biological process that decomposes organic matter in an environment
with little or no oxygen resulting in a biogas and liquid/solid stream called digestate. This
process occurs in nature in anaerobic environments, as well in landfills. Engineered anaerobic
digestion systems have been used in Europe, Canada, Japan, Australia and the U.S. to reduce the
biodegradable content of organic solid waste and to produce energy. The decomposition occurs
in a four-step process: hydrolysis, acidogenesis, acetogenesis, and methanogenesis to break down
organic matter into methane, carbon dioxide, water, and digestate/residuals.
3.D-8

Staff Report to the Board 2
The biogas contains mostly methane and carbon dioxide but frequently carrying impurities such
as moisture, hydrogen sulfide (H2S), ammonia, siloxane, and particulate matter. Anaerobic
digestion can be conducted in lagoons (covered or not), controlled reactors, digesters and
landfills. Biogas, primarily methane and carbon dioxide, is the principal energy product from
anaerobic digestion processes. Biogas can be burned directly for heat or steam or converted to
electricity in reciprocating or gas turbine engines, steam turbines, or fuel cells. Biogas can be
upgraded to biomethane and used as a vehicle fuel, injected to the natural gas transmission
system, or reformed into hydrogen fuel.
Anaerobic digestion systems are employed in many wastewater treatment facilities for sludge
degradation and stabilization, and used in engineered anaerobic digesters to treat high-strength
industrial and food processing wastewaters prior to disposal. In Europe, the systems are used to
treat the biodegradable fraction of solid waste prior to landfilling in order to reduce future
methane and leachate emissions and recover some energy. As a consequence of the European
Commission Landfill Directive, installed anaerobic digestion capacity in Europe has increased
sharply and now stands at more than 4 million tons of annual capacity.
A facility using anaerobic digestion to handle solid waste will have a system comprised of the
following units: feedstock handling/storage, preprocessing, digester, collection and storage of the
biogas, dewatering of the digestate, and handling/storage of the dewatered digestate. There are
several designs for digesters, single-stage (wet or dry), two-stage, and batch systems. The
dewatered digestate still contains organic matter and may need to be further treated to stabilize it,
usually through aerated composting or disposal in a landfill. A digestate that meets the definition
of compostable material, but fails the standards set for metals or pathogens set in Title 14
California Code of Regulations Sections 17868.2 and 17868.3, should continue to be considered
to be a waste material. The storage and use of biogas generated from anaerobic digestion is not
viewed as a part of the solid waste handling activities discussed in this guidance.
Information on anaerobic digestion systems and their use is contained in the March 2008 Board
report, “Current Anaerobic Digestion Technologies Used for Treatment of Municipal Organic
Solid Waste,” can be viewed or downloaded at
http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/publications/default.asp?pubid=1275.
Anaerobic Digestion Handling Compostable Material Is Regulated As
a Compostable Material Handling Facility
In general, looking first to the nature of the material being handled helps determine the
regulatory scheme which applies to anaerobic digestion activities. If the feedstock handled at the
facility is a compostable material, the facility will typically be regulated as a compostable
material handling facility. If the material is not compostable, then the activity will typically be
treated as a transfer and processing facility, subject to the Three-Part Test and volumes involved.
Anaerobic digestion fits within the statutory definition of composting. (“Composting” is defined
broadly as “the controlled or uncontrolled biological decomposition of organic wastes.” PRC
3.D-9

dairy_peir_final_cert

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to dairy_peir_final_cert

Similar to dairy_peir_final_cert (20)

dairy_peir_final_cert